BS: Are you a 'natural person'?

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: GUEST,Natural Guest
Date: 20 Feb 07 - 11:27 PM

Believe what you wish, but the facts are spelled out in the case law cited above.

Ed Brown of New Hampshire is holed up right now, waiting for the I.R.S. to murder him for non-payment of income tax. He's offered a $10,000 reward for anyone who can show him the law requiring him to pay income tax. The reward has been there for years, but no one has been able to show him the law.

And other organizations are offering even larger rewards for the same information, so I suggest that since so many people on this thread are convinced they know the truth of this matter, you should get busy collecting those rewards. All you have to do is phone Ed Brown and quote the law # to him, and the money is yours. Get back to me, too, with that law #.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: mrdux
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 01:56 AM

So this one is for the ten grand? Let's see. As Grab pointed out above, the U.S. Constitution is pretty clear about the power of taxation.

Article I, section 8:

"The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States"

and the 16th Amendment provides:

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

So, the Congress has been authorized and empowered by the U. S. Constitution to pass laws to collect taxes in general and income taxes in particular. Under that grant of power, the U. S. Congress has passed a bunch of laws doing just that. Here are some selected provisions of those laws:

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART I—TAX ON INDIVIDUALS

26 USC § 1. Tax imposed
(a) Married individuals filing joint returns and surviving spouses
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of—
(1) every married individual (as defined in section 7703) who makes a single return jointly with his spouse under section 6013, and
(2) every surviving spouse (as defined in section 2 (a)),
a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

[table omitted]

(b) Heads of households
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every head of a household (as defined in section 2 (b)) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

[table omitted]

(c) Unmarried individuals (other than surviving spouses and heads of households)
There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every individual (other than a surviving spouse as defined in section 2 (a) or the head of a household as defined in section 2 (b)) who is not a married individual (as defined in section 7703) a tax determined in accordance with the following table:

[table omitted]

and so forth. Note that these taxes are imposed on "individuals." Now, lest there be any major confusion, we can turn to

TITLE 26 > Subtitle A > CHAPTER 1 > Subchapter A > PART II—TAX ON CORPORATIONS

26 USC § 11 Tax imposed

(a) Corporations in general
A tax is hereby imposed for each taxable year on the taxable income of every corporation.

b) Amount of tax
(1) In general
The amount of the tax imposed by subsection (a) shall be the sum of—

[table omitted]

Note that there's a completely separate section of the law regarding taxation of corporations, as distinct from individuals. Seems that both individuals and corporations are each taxed under their very own separate sections of the Code. If you want to read the whole thing yourself -- including all those tables -- here 'tis:
U. S. Tax Code

So, do share this with Ed, and if Ed, or anyone else, wants to send large sums of money out this way, please let me know and we can make the appropriate arrangements.

And, I have to say, the whole notion of involuntarily changing one's legal status by virtue of the capitalization of one's name is beyond imagining. I will note that my business is incorporated and on our official corporate documents, the firm name is printed in lower case with Initial Caps. For whatever that may be worth. It sure doesn't change the corporation into a person.

michael

ps -- Nov schmoz ka pop? I like that.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 02:17 AM

Ah, but Michael, surely you just don't understand? It saves so much time if one just believes what the fringenuts are saying.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 02:35 AM

I just now googled "ed brown" +new hampshire and this tax story is the first link that came up. Evidently it's a standoff- Brown's wife has agreed to capitulate but Brown has not, and has barricaded himself in his house. Friends and supporters have descended upon the home; one of his "friends" is advising that Brown needs to murder the judge in the case and get himself killed, that at this point Brown is "worth more (to the cause) dead than alive".

Natural Guest is hanging with his own kind for sure.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: mrdux
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 02:40 AM

Ebbie --

You're probably right, of course, and I probably don't really understand. . . but there's this contrarian part of my nature that (sometimes) just can't resist giving that extra little bit of effort.

michael

PS -- You don't suppose Ed's really gonna send me the $10K?

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 02:49 AM

And ruin his martyrdom, Ebbie?

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 04:36 AM

Michael, I am certain that hw will send you the 10 mil forthwith. :)

Fooles, which one?

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 07:21 AM

a) Any or all of the $10 mil.... :-)

b) any one... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: GUEST,Natural Guest
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 02:18 PM

But the 16th Amendment was never ratified. That's common knowledge:

http://www.thelawthatneverwas.com/new/home.asp

Any law based on the 16th is fraudulent. And Article 1 gives power to collect taxes on the United States, not individuals.

What's being done now is the creation of "common law." The 16th Amendment was never ratified, but the American people never objected, so in the absence of objection they signified their approval of the collection of income taxes. That's why tax protestors are important. The American people have NOT signified approval. The case of Ed Brown and thousands of other tax martyrs can now be cited as precedence. No law was every produced showing they owed taxes, and they were wrongfully prosecuted.

Forward your information to Brown. His email address is listed on the internet somewhere. You'll get the same reply you got from me, I imagine. No viable law exists. And what's more, no judge is able to point to such law.

As far as the capitalization thing, it is what it is. The U.S. govt can only tax you if you are another govt or a corporation. Since most people live their lives never thinking of self-employment/incorporation, a method was devised to surreptitiously turn people into individual, one-person corporations. That's the Capitalization scam.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: Ebbie
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 02:43 PM

It sounds so SIMPLE. Whatever made me think that government is complex?

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: jeffp
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 02:52 PM

From Wikipedia:

Some tax protesters, conspiracy investigators, and others opposed to income taxes cite what they contend is evidence that the Sixteenth Amendment was never "properly ratified." One such argument is that because the legislatures of various states passed resolutions of ratification with different capitalization, spelling of words, or punctuation marks (e.g. semi-colons instead of commas) from the text proposed by Congress, those states' ratifications were invalid. A related argument is that various states illegally violated procedural requirements of their constitutions when passing their ratification resolutions. Another argument made by some tax protesters regards Ohio, one of the states listed as ratifying the amendment. They contend that because Congress did not pass an official proclamation recognizing Ohio's date of admission (1803) to statehood until 1953 (see Ohio Constitution), Ohio was not a state until 1953 (and, therefore, could not have ratified the Sixteenth Amendment). These and similar arguments have been universally rejected by the courts.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: jeffp
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 03:18 PM

This and other arguments addressed here.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: mrdux
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 06:37 PM

"But the 16th Amendment was never ratified. That's common knowledge:"

Au contraire.

The claim seems to be that, for a number of formal problems, the ratification of the 16th Amendment was defective, and that, therefore, the Internal Revenue Code – or at least that portion of it that depends on the 16th Amendment – is invalid. As a result, there is no law that requires or compels an individual to pay income taxes.

Regardless of any defects in the ratification process, the fact that the Secretary of State in 1913 had declared that enough states had ratified the Sixteenth Amendment is sufficient to uphold the validity of the amendment as a matter of law and to render the validity of the amendment on those grounds non-justiciable, or non-reviewable. See Field v. Clark, 143 U.S. (1892); Leser v. Garnett, 258 U.S. 130 (1922). The question of the validity of the Sixteenth Amendment, against the ratification challenge, has been upheld by every court that has considered it. See, e.g., United States v. Thomas, 788 F2d 1250 (7th Cir. 1986), cert. den. 107 S.Ct. 187 (1986); United States v. Benson, 67 F.3d 641 (7th Cir. 1995); and others too numerous to mention. To be fair, the U.S. Supreme Court has not squarely decided the specific question. On the other hand, despite having been asked repeatedly, the Court had declined to consider the matter. It may be that at some point someone might persuade the Supreme Court to revisit the question -- or persuade a lower court to toss the Sixteenth Amendemnt, which will certainly get the attention of the Supremes -- but until such time, it is indisputable that, like it or not, rightly or wrongly, for better or for ill, the Sixteenth Amendment is valid and binding and an accurate expression of what the law is. To say that the law is otherwise is simply not accurate.

Although I'm not a Wikipedia true believer, I've read and case-checked the article entitled "Tax protester constitutional arguments" (see the link in jeffp's posting just above) and it seems to be an accurate statement of the issues underlying the argument regarding the purported defects in the ratification process and the law relating to the issue.

All in all, I think that the lack of ratification of the 16th Amendment is an argument, not a fact. And neither the argument nor the "fact" seems to be common knowledge.

One last thing, and then I have to get back to work: "As far as the capitalization thing, it is what it is." I still don't get what "it" is (with apologies to Mr. Clinton), or where "it" comes from. I'm unaware of anything in the law that makes any distinctions based on whether or not a name is capitalized. Is there a case (and please not someone else's website) you can direct me to?

michael

ps -- and I can't believe that I allowed myself to get into this discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: GUEST,Natural Guest
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:01 PM

Wikipedia's a govt dis-info site. So are Urban legends, Snopes, etc. And Google and Yahoo censor. It's getting more difficult to find untainted information on the web.

As far as case law on the capitalization issue, I don't know what you're looking for, but there are lots of cases posted like this abatement case:

http://www.mind-trek.com/articles/t16g.htm

He beat the I.R.S. with that. Some imbedded links to other cases if you want to poke around there. But he won, so what more can you say? Lots of these cases on the web. The courts know when to argue and when not to, and rather than have this guy heard, and have his story reported, they went on to the next case. Happens a lot.

As far as the 16th Amendment...if the govt HAD the power to tax individuals, then why was the 16th Amendment needed? The 16th Amendment was an admission by the govt that it did not have the right to tax incomes of individuals. All that was supposed to change when the Constitution was amended with the 16th, but the process was short-circuited. Many states changed the wording of "their" version of the Amendment, then the vote fell short, then the Executive branch cut the process short and announced it was the law. The 16th Amendment is not law. Any income tax laws based on it are void, and since the govt admitted it couldn't tax incomes BEFORE the 16th, well...we have no valid income tax laws at the federal level. Sorry, folks, but you've been ripped off. And if you want to stop paying income tax, look into the abatement approach at the link above.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: GUEST,Natural Guest
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:11 PM

Oh, and on the Supreme Court not touching the 16th Amendment, you're right. And that should be criminal in itself. They should rule on all cases presented to them, not cherry-pick. Because they pick and choose, they're allowing time to pass on the question of the 16th Amendment, thus establishing common law. The Supreme Court is part of the problem.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: mrdux
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 09:59 PM

OK. I read the material on the captialization issue (and it was, indeed, someone else's website). I must be thorouhgly dense. I don't get what, if any, legal significance there is to the typographical happenstance of capitalization. Someone in the materials proclaimed that "John Smith" is the name of a natural person but "JOHN SMITH" is a fictitious name. Beats the hell out of me why that should be so. Nothing in the materials suggests any particular reason that there should be a difference, other than a citation to the fact that it violates the laws of grammar. So far as I know, no one has ever been prosecuted for violating grammatical rules. I still think the capitalization issue is nonsense.

There isn't any law that requires the Supreme Court to hear every case submitted to it. Which, IMHO, is probably a good thing, given the current composition of the Supreme Court (whoever thought that John Paul Stevens, when he was appointed, would become the staunchest guardian of civil liberties on the bench?). If there were such a requirement, I can't imagine that, given the volume of cases that would be submitted -- and the enormously high percentage of pure bullshit in that volume -- they'd ever get anything done. Again, maybe with this Court, that's not such a bad thing.

I noted that I was not a Wikipedian. . . but, in this particular case, so far as I was able to cross-check the cases that were cited, the one article seemed to be pretty accurate and comprehensive. Didn't know Wikipedia had government connections. No, don't tell me, I don't want to expand the discussion.

So, a question for you, Mr. Natural Guest: have you personally tried the abatement method of avoiding paying income taxes? If so, how well did it work?

michael

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: jeffp
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:03 PM

So any site that disagrees with you is a government disinformation site. Why can't you see that this is another one? Nobody agrees with you. We all post information counter to yours. Why do we do it? Of course! We're all government disinformation agents. And you're falling into our trap. The black helicopters will be coming for you soon.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: Don Firth
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:18 PM

Sirens in the distance . . . getting closer. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: GUEST,Natural Guest
Date: 21 Feb 07 - 10:31 PM

You're not dense at all, mrdux. Very cogent arguments. Perhaps the concept is too new to fully understand yet, but you've obviously seen and read a lot pertaining to legal matters, so haven't you ever wondered why so many proper names are in all caps?

If you don't understand the difference between the Caps v rules of grammar spelling, look again at some of the entries above. The first one posted sums it up:

"In jurisprudence, a natural person is a human being perceptible through the senses and subject to physical laws, as opposed to an artificial person, i.e., an organization that the law treats for some purposes as if it were a person distinct from its members or owner."

With that as a guide, the simplest way to change you the natural person into you the artificial person (who can then be taxed, as a corporation) is through the manipulation of the rules of grammar. And you'd never go along with it voluntarily, so it's done through subterfuge.

Like I said before I referred you to another link, I didn't know exactly what you were looking for. I don't have access to any of the paid legal search services, so I referred you to a typical abatement summation, posted by a man who won his case. If you have access to one of the legal services, maybe you can look up the particulars of that case, but 30 seconds in court shouldn't produce much more of a paper trail than what is posted at the above link.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: mrdux
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 12:41 AM

I don't want to prolong this overly much -- it's getting late and I'm sort of tired -- so let these be my last comments.

"'In jurisprudence, a natural person is a human being perceptible through the senses and subject to physical laws, as opposed to an artificial person, i.e., an organization that the law treats for some purposes as if it were a person distinct from its members or owner.'"

While that's an archaic definition, it' still pretty accurate. There are persons, on the one hand, and there are entities -- corporations, partnerships, trusts, and the like -- that the law has recognized as having a legally cognizable existence, on the other. That's easy. (And, under the Internal Revenue COde, tey all get taxed).

The second part makes no sense.

"With that as a guide, the simplest way to change you the natural person into you the artificial person (who can then be taxed, as a corporation) is through the manipulation of the rules of grammar. And you'd never go along with it voluntarily, so it's done through subterfuge."

A person's legal status can't be changed merely by the simple expedient of using capital letters or by the manipulation of the rules of grammar. The use of capital letters, as opposed to initial caps, is a purely stylistic, substantively insignificant phenomenon. Capital letters are typically used in the titles of legal pleadings, in transcripts when identifying the speaker, in the headings of reported cases, and the like. Lots of times you will see an named person and a corporation identified in caps in the title of a case and then, in the text of the case, both are identified in lower case w/ initial caps. Similarly with transcripts. Do you suppose that by identifying a corporation in lower case letters with initial caps it is somehow transform into a "natural person"? I don't think so. The use or non-use of capital letters simply makes no difference.

The other difficulty I have with the notion is that corporate status is a sought after benefit, in that it classically shields the individuals who are the owners of the corporation from personal liability for the acts of the corporation (with some exceptions). Typically, there are quite a few hoops that need to be jumped through for the benefit of corporate status to be legally recognized. In no jurisdiction can it be accomplished by the simple expedient of capitalizing one's name. If it were that easy, everyone would be doing it to avoid personally liability for, say, their own debts -- "Hey, don't ask me: it's the "JOHN SMITH" corporation that owes you the money, not I, John Smith." Again, with apologies -- or thanks -- to Mr. Clinton, that dog still won't hunt.

And on that cheery note, I bid you,

Bon soir.

michael

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 04:32 AM

Time for the meds again then - til the next thread...

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: GUEST
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 06:01 AM

A natural DD yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: Grab
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 08:31 AM

Natural Guest, you keep referring to the same site. Now a website can claim whatever the author wants, and this may be fact or it may be fiction.

If you want credibility, point us to a *law* which says that capitalisation of names is considered significant, or any relevant caselaw which says this. I went looking myself on the web; couldn't find it. Your linked site also gives no such reference, although it's quite free in providing references for everything else.

If caps is considered different, how's about typeface? Could "John Smith, Times New Roman 12-point", be a different legal entity from "John Smith, Arial 10-point"? Does bold-face or italics affect it? How about underlining?

Bottom line: I'm prepared to believe anything that comes with evidence. Your "evidence" so far has either been absent or just plain wrong - I've already debunked the claim about Canadian income tax laws, for example.

Given your other off-topic claims about the Queen financing Hitler and other bizarreness, it's clear to me that your claims are just a symptom of deeper underlying problems. If you're for real, seek help. Have your family ever mentioned therapy?

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: GUEST,Natural Guest
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:19 PM

If you pay personal income tax, you are a corporation. The govt of the U.S. can only do business with other govts and with corporations (same as in Canada). So if you're a corporation, how did you get to be one? Your "natural person" name was changed to an "artificial person" name. So while you may think you're paying income tax on your own income, you're technically paying tax on the income of your corporate, or artificial self. I don't mind explaining this a hundred different ways. Maybe one of them'll register.

My family and the people I do business with in my county are aware of the points I've made here, and they've come to verify the points for themselves, mostly.

Like I said, I don't have access to the high-cost legal search engines, but I don't know that I'd even waste the time researching this with them. It would be up to the government to prove they have taxing authority, and they do that over and over because people cave in when faced with the I.R.S. criminal color of law threats of imprisonment, but the people who present the capitalization/abatement argument walk free. See the record of the abatement case above. In and out of court in under a minute. The judge knew he was looking at someone who'd found the magic bullet.

If you assert your rights as a "natural person" you do not have to pay income tax. If you go along to get along and allow the I.R.S. to prosecute you as an "artificial person," you'll have to pay the tax.

Let's see...there definitely are legal distinctions between various spellings and grammar usages. The big controversy over capitalization began with the 14th Amendment, which technically makes us all slaves, just through the use of (or misuse of) grammar. Do your own searches for that controversy. And since they got away with it in the 14th Amendment, they tried it again in the 16th, but the states were wise to the federal abuses by then and tweaked the 16th and effectively killed it. The versions the different states voted on have differing rules of grammar, among other things. So yes, grammar makes a big difference in law.

Another problem is jurisdiction and authority. That's why the abatement statement made by the man at the link above reads so strangely. He had to lay out for the court which authority he was operating under. Once that was done, the court acknowledged it had no say in the man's life, not in the matter of income tax.

If this subject is really of interest to any of you, you'll do the reasearch. I've shown you a way out of the federal income tax system, if you want to pursue it.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:28 PM

SHEESH!

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:50 PM

Approximately 18 and a half years ago, NG, I asked you how you proposed that government be funded if its citizens were to pay no taxes. I don't recall that you ever answered that, other than to intimate that government is too large.

Unless you postulate that the postal service, the train system, the highway system (I know, I know : Eisenhower was a traitor to his country when he created the interstate highway system), the military, the social security system, and half a dozen others should all be taken over by individuals in for-profit schemes, how would these systems come to be and maintained? Just print off more bills?

Really. I am curious.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: jeffp
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 01:56 PM

Have you taken advantage of this? If so, how is it working? If not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 02:01 PM

You are not a natural person if you wipe yer arse with toilet paper. If the good Lord meant for you to use toilet paper youda been born with it in yer hand. (That was my inspired thought for the day.)

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: Grab
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:15 PM

If you pay personal income tax, you are a corporation.

For the umpteenth time, provide evidence. Cite the US Constitution. Cite the relevant laws (note that your favoured site was *wrong* on its citation of laws). Cite caselaw precedent. I don't mind explaining this a hundred different ways either. Maybe one of them'll register with you.

Otherwise, I'm out. You can't have a discussion with someone who doesn't respond to your questions.

Graham.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: Peace
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 03:18 PM

Fuck me gently. Thanks for quoting that little piece of wisdom, Grab. Hell, yesterday I was just some guy making a living. Today I'm a corporation. YIPPEE.

I'm gonna go multi-national real soon. Stay tuned.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: GUEST,Natural Guest
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:00 PM

Sorry folks, but I suppose words have failed me if I can't make you understand this. The U.S. govt has to PROVE you owe them income tax, and they can't do that if you proceed in a certain way. They tax the income of your "artificial" person, which they created (in most cases) through the capitalization scam.

I think this is like a word puzzle...either you get it or you don't. Or a Rubik's cube. Talk to your tax preparers about it. As long as they're not with one of the big govt-friendly chains, they might tell you the truth. Basically it's a matter of "He who does not assert his rights, has none." You have to assert your right not to be taxed by the I.R.S.

Ebbie...In the U.S., federal income taxes go to the privately-owned Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Bank is just the U.S. branch of the World Bank. The country of the United States never sees any of the money from your income tax payment. Your income tax goes to the World Bank, via the Federal Reserve. The U.S. is run off of other taxes. 300 million+ Americans paying dozens of taxes each day adds up, especially when that money is invested and pays interest. The U.S. runs primarily off of interest from investments and taxes OTHER than income tax. Simple as that. Research it if you don't believe me.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: jeffp
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:05 PM

Have you taken advantage of this? If so, how is it working? If not, why not?

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:10 PM

"they have taxing authority, and they do that over and over because people cave in when faced with the I.R.S. criminal color of law threats of imprisonment"

That's called 'Civilised Society' - those who resist it have always been called 'Outlaws'.



"The judge knew he was looking at someone who'd found the magic bullet."

Or a long winded dickhead who would waste hundreds of hours of his Court's time...

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: mrdux
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 09:44 PM

I hate to be meddlesome, but jeffp asked what seemed to me to be a pertinent question that warrants an answer:

"Have you taken advantage of this? If so, how is it working? If not, why not?"

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: GUEST,Natural Guest
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 11:20 PM

Well, if I told the I.R.S. to piss off, why would I discuss my income and such here?

Believe this stuff if you want, research it if you want, continue to pay tax as an artificial person if you want.

Best wishes.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Feb 07 - 11:26 PM

Oh ho- my guess is that you are out of a job.

:)

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: jeffp
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 09:17 AM

In other words, you haven't done what you are exhorting us to do. Why haven't you? Are you afraid?

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: Peace
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 10:02 AM

As long as ya feed the bear it will keep returning to the place it gets the food.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: GUEST,Natural Guest
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 01:11 PM

I didn't say I hadn't done this. And if I went to court and told the I.R.S. it's none of their business how much money I make, why would I discuss it with you? The baiting tactics you use are just like those of the I.R.S. All I have to do is refuse to cooperate. Get the picture?

Fear. The I.R.S. doesn't mind if a single taxpayer drops out here and there, but informing others of the loophole...that's the dangerous part. Fear is the hold the I.R.S. has over you, but what is the fear, in the final analysis? It's just a self-imposed restraint. Get over it.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: jeffp
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 02:18 PM

I didn't ask how much you made. I asked if you had told the IRS to fuck off. I'm betting you haven't. I think you are absolutely full of it. You are just a petty little pissant trying to stir up trouble. You offer no proof and everybody else has shown proof that your statements are wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 03:05 PM

"The I.R.S. doesn't mind if a single taxpayer drops out here and there..." NG

And that explains Edward Brown, how?

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: fumblefingers
Date: 23 Feb 07 - 08:37 PM

Stilly River Sage and my old business law professor has it right about corporations. The rest of this stuff is horseshit.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 08:35 AM

"All I have to do is refuse to cooperate."

And so do we.

If we can't keep our fingers out of this crap, then let's just close the thread.... PLEASE!

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 08:40 AM

This thread is just another nail in teh coffin of those who insist that non-members should be allowed to start BS threads...

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 01:07 PM

I don't agree about closing this thread or in classing it as feeding a troll or any of those good things. I do agree that this person's take on reality is of a fragile nature. But I also think that take is symptomatic of a lot that is going on out there. It may be more important to post reasoned responses- somebody out there may suddenly realize that #1: his or her take on it doesn't make sense, #2: that it is classic paranoia, #3: that to believe it to be true would require believing that the mass of people are out to get you, #4: If having masses of people conniving to get you does not make sense then just perhaps you are free to look at people differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 04:40 PM

I know I am paranoid, but...

I have often wondered "Am I paranoid enough?"

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Feb 07 - 06:42 PM

FT, yes. :)

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 08:03 AM

Since this thread hasn't been closed, I thought I would share this with you.

While emptying out a bulk pack of Coke cans into my fridge, I came across some entry forms for a competition.

Now note this: they want you to fill in your name using ALL BLOCK LETTERS (Capitals)!

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: jeffp
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 11:00 AM

So, which you would that be? The corporate you or the corporeal one?

Subject: RE: BS: Are you a 'natural person'?
From: Ebbie
Date: 25 Feb 07 - 12:19 PM

OH NO! It must be true!